Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: amolitor on August 14, 2019, 02:18:37 pm
-
There's a thread with, yes, not much interest, gradually fading to the bottom of the list.
I ask a photographically salient question wildly unlikely to provoke any kind of problematic debate, and you decide to lock the thread for "lack of interest" which is something you never do, and for which there is no reason.
I think I am justified in assuming that you did this specifically because you have some kind of hard-on for me, and you couldn't bear the thought of anyone actually replying to my.
Fuck you, Roussak, you incompetent dipshit.
-
Looks like some anger-management program is going to get a new client?
-
Why would you close a thread that isn't getting much traffic?
-
Jeremy, please unlock the thread.
-
Why would you close a thread that isn't getting much traffic?
For the same reason that he locked a thread that I started that asked a reasonable question. Why not close down the Constitution thread that has morphed into one discussing food safety. I guess we are just confronted with random "kind" acts of censorship. If this is the way it is to be, maybe the old policy of no political threads should be re-instituted. Of course that would cut down traffic on this site by about 90%.
-
Oh, Alan, you poor thing. 8) To quote one of Dorothea Lange's subjects: "Life is hard and then you die."
-
Oh, Alan, you poor thing. 8) To quote one of Dorothea Lange's subjects: "Life is hard and then you die."
Interesting reaction, albeit irrelevant.
Do you think closing the thread was warranted? To my mind, Jeremy's explanation was unconvincing.
-
I think the thread was asinine, Robert. Should have been closed right at the beginning. And Alan always has talked about the abuse he suffered when he was removed as moderator for one thread. Life is hard and then you die.
-
Interesting reaction, albeit irrelevant.
Do you think closing the thread was warranted? To my mind, Jeremy's explanation was unconvincing.
It's really useless responding to one trick ponies and you will have noticed that I've given up. When I see RSL and a post, it is always ignored and maybe he doesn't like the fact that I pay him no attention. The larger question is the selective censorship that appears to be taking place. I posted an image that was released by the First Lady. This is not a gotcha picture but one that was put out for everyone to see. From my own perspective it was kind of like a weird Diane Arbus image that she would have taken were she a press photographer.
-
There's a thread with, yes, not much interest, gradually fading to the bottom of the list.
I ask a photographically salient question wildly unlikely to provoke any kind of problematic debate, and you decide to lock the thread for "lack of interest" which is something you never do, and for which there is no reason.
I think I am justified in assuming that you did this specifically because you have some kind of hard-on for me, and you couldn't bear the thought of anyone actually replying to my.
Fuck you, Roussak, you incompetent dipshit.
The last part is totally uncalled for, and you deserve a vacation for it IMHO.
But the question of the lock is valid...
-
The role of an administrator or moderator is there to facilitate. The administrator or moderator should not be actively participating in the discussion topic itself.
Regards,
Jaap.
-
It's really useless responding to one trick ponies and you will have noticed that I've given up. When I see RSL and a post, it is always ignored and maybe he doesn't like the fact that I pay him no attention. The larger question is the selective censorship that appears to be taking place. I posted an image that was released by the First Lady. This is not a gotcha picture but one that was put out for everyone to see. From my own perspective it was kind of like a weird Diane Arbus image that she would have taken were she a press photographer.
So why did he lock your post?
-
It's really useless responding to one trick ponies and you will have noticed that I've given up. When I see RSL and a post, it is always ignored and maybe he doesn't like the fact that I pay him no attention. The larger question is the selective censorship that appears to be taking place. I posted an image that was released by the First Lady. This is not a gotcha picture but one that was put out for everyone to see. From my own perspective it was kind of like a weird Diane Arbus image that she would have taken were she a press photographer.
Hi, Alan. I deliberately avoided the word "whined" and substituted "talked" about when I wrote that post. Now I think that word is entirely appropriate.
-
I think the thread was asinine, Robert. Should have been closed right at the beginning.
Ok, so why are you participating in it then?
And why was your participation only to belittle another contributor?
-
And why was your participation only to belittle another contributor?
I wasn't the one who did that, Robert. He did it himself.
That's it. I'm outta here. You guys have at it.
-
No matter who is moderating, what the issue is, abusive language is not welcome.
Perhaps we need to assess the specific issue of the moderator’s roll and empowerment, if that is indeed the issue at hand.
A little perspective and basic decorum please.
Take a moment.
J
-
No matter who is moderating, what the issue is, abusive language is not welcome.
Perhaps we need to assess the specific issue of the moderator’s roll and empowerment, if that is indeed the issue at hand.
A little perspective and basic decorum please.
Take a moment.
J
+1
-
... Perhaps we need to assess the specific issue of the moderator’s roll and empowerment...
So far, Jeremy's moderation has been stellar on balance. It is an extremely tough job, and he is doing it splendidly. There might have been an occasion or two, this example included, that I, or others, might not see the reason for closing a thread the same way Jeremy does. However, I am happy to live with a living, breathing person's judgment, even if imperfect on occasion.
-
No matter who is moderating, what the issue is, abusive language is not welcome.
Perhaps we need to assess the specific issue of the moderator’s roll and empowerment, if that is indeed the issue at hand.
A little perspective and basic decorum please.
Take a moment.
J
I fully agree. Please also consider defining some kind of job requirements before assigning someone to the role of administrator or moderator. After assignment evaluate the person’s skills let’s say twice a year and take corrective measures if necessary. Just like with a ‘real’ job. See this as a general remark, I have no particular person in mind…..
Regards,
Jaap.
-
So far, Jeremy's moderation has been stellar on balance. It is an extremely tough job, and he is doing it splendidly. There might have been an occasion or two, this example included, that I, or others, might not see the reason for closing a thread the same way Jeremy does. However, I am happy to live with a living, breathing person's judgment, even if imperfect on occasion.
+1
I have no idea what went on behind the scenes, but people need to cool down a bit (already a challenge on the global level).
-
So far, Jeremy's moderation has been stellar on balance. It is an extremely tough job, and he is doing it splendidly. There might have been an occasion or two, this example included, that I, or others, might not see the reason for closing a thread the same way Jeremy does. However, I am happy to live with a living, breathing person's judgment, even if imperfect on occasion.
Reminds me of a scene involving Mr. Potato Head in Toy Story.
-
So why did he lock your post?
Your guess is as good as mine.
-
No matter who is moderating, what the issue is, abusive language is not welcome.
Perhaps we need to assess the specific issue of the moderator’s roll and empowerment, if that is indeed the issue at hand.
A little perspective and basic decorum please.
Take a moment.
J
You might want to tell the moderator that something more than a single throw away line is required when a thread is locked.
-
So far, Jeremy's moderation has been stellar on balance. It is an extremely tough job, and he is doing it splendidly. There might have been an occasion or two, this example included, that I, or others, might not see the reason for closing a thread the same way Jeremy does. However, I am happy to live with a living, breathing person's judgment, even if imperfect on occasion.
+1
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks to all, in particular Josh and Slobodan.
The thread had deteriorated to abuse and re-declarations of view, with a marked absence of intellectual content. That's why I locked it.
Nothing has gone on behind the scenes. I have had no communication with Molitor and I have no idea why his knickers are in such a twist. We will, of course, not be subjected to any of his posts here for a while. Molitor and Goldhammer have both formed the view that I have some personal animus against them. Molitor has quoted statistics at me which I have shown to him to be entirely wrong.
Let me make it perfectly clear: whatever view I might hold of their politics or the manner in which they frame their posts, I bear no personal animosity toward any member of this forum.
I volunteered to moderate the discussion forums on LuLa a little over a year ago, because having learned a lot here about photography, I felt I should give something back. I neither take nor expect any payment for what I do.
Goldhammer had, I understand, previously been allowed to moderate a sub-section of the forum but had failed to perform the task to the satisfaction of those then running the site. I have had no criticism of my performance, or of any action I have taken, from either Kevin last year, or Josh, this. No doubt if Josh is dissatisfied with my approach, he will make his views known to me.
I am, again, beginning to have second thoughts on the wisdom of allowing political discussions here. I am disappointed, as for the first few weeks most people had seemed reasonably well-behaved. Will I be forced to change my mind once more? Time will tell.
Jeremy
-
Goldhammer had, I understand, previously been allowed to moderate a sub-section of the forum but had failed to perform the task to the satisfaction of those then running the site. I have had no criticism of my performance, or of any action I have taken, from either Kevin last year, or Josh, this. No doubt if Josh is dissatisfied with my approach, he will make his views known to me.
Jeremy
Roussak, that is flat out incorrect.
-
I am, again, beginning to have second thoughts on the wisdom of allowing political discussions here. I am disappointed, as for the first few weeks most people had seemed reasonably well-behaved. Will I be forced to change my mind once more?
I hope so. Trying to run a photography forum in the middle of a Trump rally must be difficult.
-
Roussak...
Pardon my English-as-second-language ignorance, but wouldn't the proper etiquette, when using a last name, be Mr. Roussak? The way you said it sounds like fighting words, Mr. Goldhammer.
-
Pardon my English-as-second-language ignorance, but wouldn't the proper etiquette, when using a last name, be Mr. Roussak? The way you said it sounds like fighting words, Mr. Goldhammer.
Since, Mr. Roussak referred to Mr. Goldhammer as Goldhammer in the immediately preceding post, I am not sure why Mr. Roussak would take offense at Mr. Goldhammer referring to him as Roussak in his response. Was Mr. Roussak using fighting words in reference to Mr. Goldhammer?
-
So far, Jeremy's moderation has been stellar on balance. It is an extremely tough job, and he is doing it splendidly. There might have been an occasion or two, this example included, that I, or others, might not see the reason for closing a thread the same way Jeremy does. However, I am happy to live with a living, breathing person's judgment, even if imperfect on occasion.
+ about 10 by now.
-
So far, Jeremy's moderation has been stellar on balance. It is an extremely tough job, and he is doing it splendidly. There might have been an occasion or two, this example included, that I, or others, might not see the reason for closing a thread the same way Jeremy does. However, I am happy to live with a living, breathing person's judgment, even if imperfect on occasion.
I'll add my +1 to this. Nicely said.
-
Since, Mr. Roussak referred to Mr. Goldhammer as Goldhammer in the immediately preceding post, I am not sure why Mr. Roussak would take offense at Mr. Goldhammer referring to him as Roussak in his response. Was Mr. Roussak using fighting words in reference to Mr. Goldhammer?
You might be right. However, I also see the difference: it was the use of the direct, second-person approach - [You] Roussak... sounds impolite to me. Again, as a non-native speaker.
-
Well, I’m definitely not one of the fanboys.
“… with a marked absence of intellectual content. That's why I locked it.” => so now all of a sudden there is a requirement on ‘intellectual content’. Is that for Jeremy to decide? Beware what you’re requiring, as intellectual content cannot be found in that many posts (including this one).
“… I neither take nor expect any payment for what I do.” => This is beside the point and is not relevant since nobody is questioning this. An administrator or moderator should still have a (basic) skill set, especially for a quality site like this one. And I don’t see it here. Think: defining all kinds of rules and requirements by yourself in splendid isolation, very likely not aligned with and supported by the site owner.
“Goldhammer had, I understand, previously been allowed to moderate a sub-section of the forum but had failed to perform the task to the satisfaction of those then running the site”. => Very inappropriate and way out of line. There is absolutely no need at all to share this kind of info with the community here. This is way too personal so keep this to yourself, independently whether or not it is true. Also patronizing on the “been allowed to….” as this statement is not coming from the site owner but from an administrator/moderator. Since Alan was addressed by ‘Goldhammer’ and not ‘Mr. Goldhammer’ Alan is fully entitled to reply by ‘Roussak’.
“I am, again, beginning to have second thoughts on the wisdom of allowing political discussions here” => looks like a good thing to have no political discussions on a photography site like this one. As an observation; before questioning others ‘intellectual content’ first look at your own ‘wisdom’.
As mentioned by somebody else, is being a moderator an extremely tough job? In general, if after so much time a job is still extremely though then one should question his capabilities. One may not be the right person for the job on hand.
Regards,
Jaap.
-
Well, I’m definitely not one of the fanboys.
“… with a marked absence of intellectual content. That's why I locked it.” => so now all of a sudden there is a requirement on ‘intellectual content’. Is that for Jeremy to decide? Beware what you’re requiring, as intellectual content cannot be found in that many posts (including this one).
And certainly not in the writing of Rod Liddle.
-
More ‘sang froid’ and less pomposity woudn’t go amiss.
From a tribute to Michael Reichmann (https://www.dpreview.com/news/4958380521/michael-reichmann-founder-of-luminous-landscape-dies-aged-71) on dpreview
Michael was a towering figure in the North American photography press, and a natural writer. His humility and sense of humor shone through his work on Luminous-Landscape and made him wonderful company. He'd seen it all before, and didn't take any of it - certainly not himself - particularly seriously.
(https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/4958380521/DSC0339.jpeg)
-
From a tribute to Michael Reichmann (https://www.preview.com/news/4958380521/michael-reichmann-founder-of-luminous-landscape-dies-aged-71) on dpreview
The link points to www.preview.com, instead of www.dpreview.com
-
The link points to www.preview.com, instead of www.dpreview.com
fixed, thanks!
-
Pardon my English-as-second-language ignorance, but wouldn't the proper etiquette, when using a last name, be Mr. Roussak? The way you said it sounds like fighting words, Mr. Goldhammer.
That's fine, Slobodan. I work in an environment where the use of unadorned surnames is common, indeed in many circumstances considered correct. In any event, I understood it to be fairly common practice in the US. I remember being referred to as "Roussak" in an article in BYTE magazine a good many years ago. It didn't bother me then, and it doesn't bother me now. If it did, I wouldn't have indulged in the practice myself.
Think: defining all kinds of rules and requirements by yourself in splendid isolation, very likely not aligned with and supported by the site owner.
As I indicated, Josh has given me no indication that he disagrees with any single decision I have made while moderating the forums and the assertion that those decisions are "very likely" unsupported is both unsupported by any evidence and false.
As mentioned by somebody else, is being a moderator an extremely though job? In general, if after so much time a job is still extremely though then one should question his capabilities. One may not be the right person for the job on hand.
On the assumption that both instances of "though" are intended to read "tough", you misunderstand the origin of the difficulty, which is the nature and personalities of those permitted to post. I moderate with moderation and intend to continue to do so.
Jeremy
-
That's fine, Slobodan. I work in an environment where the use of unadorned surnames is common, indeed in many circumstances considered correct. In any event, I understood it to be fairly common practice in the US. I remember being referred to as "Roussak" in an article in BYTE magazine a good many years ago. It didn't bother me then, and it doesn't bother me now. If it did, I wouldn't have indulged in the practice myself.
Jeremy
That BYTE reference brings good old memories, Jeremy.
I wrote a few articles for both BYTE and KILOBAUD in their first years. I kept all their issues and at my last move I put them all to the curb for recycling. Then I found out that the first issue of BYTE sold on eBay for $600.
-
“….. of those permitted to post”. You have a strange way of expressing yourself Jeremy. Do we now need to get permission to post?
Regards,
Jaap.
-
As if the political bun fights weren't enough we now have to contend with moderation bun fights.
Laban
-
As if the political bun fights weren't enough we now have to contend with moderation bun fights.
Laban
+1.
-
I've had my run-ins but I think Jeremy is OK in my book despite them.
-
“….. of those permitted to post”. You have a strange way of expressing yourself Jeremy. Do we now need to get permission to post?
I choose my words with care and there is nothing strange about them. Of course you require permission to post, and you always have. That's what the registration procedure, which has from time to time provoked complaint for those unfamiliar with basic arithmetic, is for.
I've had my run-ins but I think Jeremy is OK in my book despite them.
Thank you, Alan.
Jeremy
-
That BYTE reference brings good old memories, Jeremy.
I wrote a few articles for both BYTE and KILOBAUD in their first years. I kept all their issues and at my last move I put them all to the curb for recycling. Then I found out that the first issue of BYTE sold on eBay for $600.
I came later to that party; I had a subscription to BYTE for several years in the 80s. They asked me if I'd mind their including a review of some software I'd written (a launching application called Apollo) and after hesitating for several microseconds and feeling rather flattered, I said yes. I disposed of the magazines many years ago - they took up an awful lot of space - but I think I still have the clipping somewhere.
I wrote a few articles, mostly in the "small-scale computing" section, for a UK magazine called Personal Computer World.
Jeremy
-
Will there be a banning of the member? He has, from memory, a history of offending. If no action is taken other
disgruntled members will see it as a green light to offend.
Hopefully the outcome will be made known to members?
-
Will there be a banning of the member? He has, from memory, a history of offending. If no action is taken other
disgruntled members will see it as a green light to offend.
Hopefully the outcome will be made known to members?
In my first post (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=131726.msg1124510#msg1124510) in this topic, I observed that "We will, of course, not be subjected to any of his posts here for a while".
The implication is clear. As to the duration of suspension, I think I shouldn't say; but I suspect, if past performance is anything to go by, he won't remain quiet for long after it lapses.
Jeremy
-
As if the political bun fights weren't enough we now have to contend with moderation bun fights.
It is a pity that a thread that started with a particularly vile example of a deranged moment by a member supremely qualified for an advanced anger-management institutional treatment has morphed into an attack on the moderator instead of the said member.
-
Returning to these pages after the first eye op. for cataracts - the second due on the 22nd of the month - I find that despite being viewed through the prism of the love affair currently enjoyed between the sharp new lens and the old, yellowed, Softer-equipped one, not a helluva lot has changed: still too much frustrated testosterone chasing a box, any box, into which to dump.
Insofar as Jeremy, our Moderator is concerned, I give him 100% for impartiality, resilence and dedication to duty, all as an ongoing act of informal, altruistic generosity.
Though personally disappointed that it is clearly the case that the written word on Wednesday does not always combine in the readers' minds with the word written on the previous Friday (for example - the days are arbitrary ones chosen for the sake of illustration), the political threads are nevertheless rather entertaining as some posters continue to tie themselves up in knots, apparently incapable of reading their own material and giving it a mental scan before posting. I have noticed that some appear to have a pre-written credo of beliefs that are simply pasted into many replies, a one-fits-all, in an admirable effort to conserve enrgy and prevent yet more global warming. Who knew?
I used to be affected by the odd, soft floater in my eyes; post-op. I now enjoy the sudden, crisp soldier ant appearing out of nowhere. Perhaps he, too, will pass once the drops can be discontinued.
-
Returning to these pages after the first eye op. for cataracts - the second due on the 22nd of the month - I find that despite being viewed through the prism of the love affair currently enjoyed between the sharp new lens and the old, yellowed, Softer-equipped one, not a helluva lot has changed: still too much frustrated testosterone chasing a box, any box, into which to dump.
Insofar as Jeremy, our Moderator is concerned, I give him 100% for impartiality, resilence and dedication to duty, all as an ongoing act of informal, altruistic generosity.
Though personally disappointed that it is clearly the case that the written word on Wednesday does not always combine in the readers' minds with the word written on the previous Friday (for example - the days are arbitrary ones chosen for the sake of illustration), the political threads are nevertheless rather entertaining as some posters continue to tie themselves up in knots, apparently incapable of reading their own material and giving it a mental scan before posting. I have noticed that some appear to have a pre-written credo of beliefs that are simply pasted into many replies, a one-fits-all, in an admirable effort to conserve enrgy and prevent yet more global warming. Who knew?
I used to be affected by the odd, soft floater in my eyes; post-op. I now enjoy the sudden, crisp soldier ant appearing out of nowhere. Perhaps he, too, will pass once the drops can be discontinued.
Good to see you back, and to learn that your op was successful.
-
Good to see you back, and to learn that your op was successful.
Agreed.
-
Returning to these pages after the first eye op. for cataracts - the second due on the 22nd of the month - I find that despite being viewed through the prism of the love affair currently enjoyed between the sharp new lens and the old, yellowed, Softer-equipped one, not a helluva lot has changed: still too much frustrated testosterone chasing a box, any box, into which to dump.
Insofar as Jeremy, our Moderator is concerned, I give him 100% for impartiality, resilence and dedication to duty, all as an ongoing act of informal, altruistic generosity.
Though personally disappointed that it is clearly the case that the written word on Wednesday does not always combine in the readers' minds with the word written on the previous Friday (for example - the days are arbitrary ones chosen for the sake of illustration), the political threads are nevertheless rather entertaining as some posters continue to tie themselves up in knots, apparently incapable of reading their own material and giving it a mental scan before posting. I have noticed that some appear to have a pre-written credo of beliefs that are simply pasted into many replies, a one-fits-all, in an admirable effort to conserve enrgy and prevent yet more global warming. Who knew?
I used to be affected by the odd, soft floater in my eyes; post-op. I now enjoy the sudden, crisp soldier ant appearing out of nowhere. Perhaps he, too, will pass once the drops can be discontinued.
Make that +3! I've had both eyes done Rob and now I just use glasses for extremely fine print. I have a little story to relate after your other eye has been tuned up
-
And thus another forum goes the way of the Shutterbug and Popular Photography forums; they have kicked the proverbial bucket.
-
And thus another forum goes the way of the Shutterbug and Popular Photography forums; they have kicked the proverbial bucket.
I remember a time when LuLa had a compelling photography forum.
:-(
-
I remember a time when LuLa had a compelling photography forum.
:-(
Andrew Molitor is one of the more compelling of writers on that subject!!
-
Andrew Molitor is one of the more compelling of writers on that subject!!
Those who can, do. Those who can not, muse on the subject.
-
Andrew Molitor is one of the more compelling of writers on that subject!!
Agreed.
-
... Think of it this way. You're a young or not so young beginning photographer looking for inspiration and knowledge an you fall into this section...
This forum has 37 sub forums. Why is everybody so obsessed with the 37th!? It is not even the 45th.
For the umpteenth time, do not come here if you are not a coffee drinker.
-
I agree with you, but the forums have gone through many changes. There has always been talk about new and older cameras, usually ends up in disagreement, but under Michael's control, he would have let a few of the discussions that got out of hand pass until they dominated, like this thread.
Then he would have closed it and if started again would have removed the main offenders. This is a photography forum with not many photographs, how they were done, what it takes, etc. etc.
Now it seems to me this is just another problem with "social" media. It's going way off target and not very social.
It's a shame and having "monitors" that decide who should post is the first step and I think we all know the second step.
Think of it this way. You're a young or not so young beginning photographer looking for inspiration and knowledge an you fall into this section.
What do you think the return rate will be to this forum?
IMO
BC
In this forum there are extremely deep threads on so many camera-specific topics, going back many years. These threads are alive, being referenced and resurrected. People message me regularly with great gratitude for the info the’ve gleaned from them. This is largely due to long-time posters. Newbies are generally quiet but not necessarily non active. Many new contributors have valuable opinions and info to share. They may hesitate if they believe their take has been offered already. This is due to the age and depth of the forum. It is a trove.
The political discourse is actually somewhat useful and informative IMHO. It does not magnetize ripple away from camera discussions as much as we might imagine.
There is the natural ego bruising and miscommunications. Those are relatively benign and mostly born of old grudges etc. I don’t think they are that scary. People are generally civilized here. Generally 😉
What I don’t appreciate is aggressive ad-homonym attacks or childish tantrums. That stuff will turn people off and I won’t tolerate it.
I personally find it odd when people summarize the site(s) inaccurately. If only because the assessment appears to be coming from a pretty limited view, or one with a resentment perhaps.
For example - the site proper sees up to 10-20k views per article (after approx 1 month) now vs 800-2k views last year per. Growth.
The forum has a huge number of consistent viewers daily, numbering in the many thousands. This has also grown, again.
It has also mutated. The details of the ethnographic data and map of those data points shows increases over all, and a trend which shows the terrain of camera culture changing, shrinking and growing in respective areas at once.
The point is that long time contributors are deeply valuable, and should(?) see themselves as ambassadors. That is how I see them, and how newer contributors may view them. Conduct matters and the community is growing and evolving with a new batch of professionals learning from the experienced. As it should be.
There are voices yet to be heard.
Josh
-
Those who can, do. Those who can not, muse on the subject.
I used to enjoy both pleasures.
You can make definitive statements as the above whenever the mood strikes, but saying so don't make it so. I am as guilty as anyone else on that score, but usually my ire is aimed at curators and their ilk, where (and I could be mistaken) I perceive their power rôle as one of substitute for the ability of which you write; their revenge, if you like...
Not sure LuLa and the dodo are about to be united any time soon, but I think the problem is something other than poitical sections: it's about fewer and fewer people - beyond those who are determined to make it career - having much interest in photography in the manner of the older crew. They no longer have the developing and printing part to wonder at and to enjoy. Say what you like, but unless you were able to go through that visual baptism - and there was no other way in - photography, today, is something else entirely, as we all realise. Why would stepping up from an iPhone to a standard camera feel a wonderful experience? If anything, it may feel like a pointless step into the complicated, and if your ability and/or imagination aim no higher, why would you go there (or here, to be blunt).
It's not, as I hear some thinking, the old fight about film v. digital superiority at all; it's about the introductory experiences that hooked the old 'uns but hold little for the new people unless that have already tasted the forbidden wet apple in school or somewhere like that.
Photography has just become one more way of wasting spending your free time. Romance? What romance? Even here, few feel that way about the lady: mostly, they just want her numbers, the higher the better.
-
Good to see you back, and to learn that your op was successful.
Thank you! I'm hoping the next one goes as happily!
Rob
-
Agreed.
Thank you, stamper - I miss shooting, but life is complicated.
Rob
-
Make that +3! I've had both eyes done Rob and now I just use glasses for extremely fine print. I have a little story to relate after your other eye has been tuned up
Thanks, and looking forward to the story, as I am to driving again.
Rob
-
In this forum there are extremely deep threads on so many camera-specific topics, going back many years. These threads are alive, being referenced and resurrected. People message me regularly with great gratitude for the info the’ve gleaned from them. This is largely due to long-time posters. Newbies are generally quiet but not necessarily non active. Many new contributors have valuable opinions and info to share. They may hesitate if they believe their take has been offered already. This is due to the age and depth of the forum. It is a trove.
The political discourse is actually somewhat useful and informative IMHO. It does not magnetize ripple away from camera discussions as much as we might imagine.
There is the natural ego bruising and miscommunications. Those are relatively benign and mostly born of old grudges etc. I don’t think they are that scary. People are generally civilized here. Generally 😉
What I don’t appreciate is aggressive ad-homonym attacks or childish tantrums. That stuff will turn people off and I won’t tolerate it.
I personally find it odd when people summarize the site(s) inaccurately. If only because the assessment appears to be coming from a pretty limited view, or one with a resentment perhaps.
For example - the site proper sees up to 10-20k views per article (after approx 1 month) now vs 800-2k views last year per. Growth.
The forum has a huge number of consistent viewers daily, numbering in the many thousands. This has also grown, again.
It has also mutated. The details of the ethnographic data and map of those data points shows increases over all, and a trend which shows the terrain of camera culture changing, shrinking and growing in respective areas at once.
The point is that long time contributors are deeply valuable, and should(?) see themselves as ambassadors. That is how I see them, and how newer contributors may view them. Conduct matters and the community is growing and evolving with a new batch of professionals learning from the experienced. As it should be.
There are voices yet to be heard.
Josh
Wise words, Josh.
(I usually refrain from reposting long posts in replies, but felt this one deserves it)
-
Wise words, Josh.
(I usually refrain from reposting long posts in replies, but felt this one deserves it)
Appreciated Slobodan.
I truly want to emphasis that this forum is a very valuable free and open-source school for hundreds and thousands of people, the world over.
This should not be underestimated.
J
-
Wise words, Josh.
I agree completely.
It is inevitable that the world of photography has changed a lot since the early days of LuLa. I am one of those who made the at times painful transition from wet/film to digital, and LuLa was my best resource for learning the New Ways. Back then I had lots of technical questions, which were answered very well by professional and experienced amateur photographers. Now I try to answer questions wherever I can offer help, and I mostly post images and comment on those I like.
I personally don't bother with most threads in the Coffee Corner (except for the Humor thread).
In my opinion, LuLa is doing very well. And Jeremy's moderation has been appropriately light, IMHO.
-
The point is that long time contributors are deeply valuable, and should(?) see themselves as ambassadors. That is how I see them, and how newer contributors may view them. Conduct matters and the community is growing and evolving with a new batch of professionals learning from the experienced. As it should be.
There are voices yet to be heard.
Josh
Hi Josh,
Let me first say, I realize we are playing in your garden and I think all members should remember this simple fact.
I’m afraid your theoretical reflection above is merely an expression of hope and how you would like it to be.
May I suggest to reach out to the not so old members and ask them how they experience those good old ambassador members.
You could be surprised by the answer.
-
And since the political discussions are back:
-
Conduct matters and the community is growing and evolving with a new batch of professionals learning from the experienced. As it should be.
Josh
I’m not sure if I understand this correctly.
(My poor English, sorry)
If you say: new contributors should learn from the oldies about the proper conduct on Lula: yes, O yes. But is that how it is in reality? Do the old members exhibit proper conduct?
If you say: new contributors should learn about photography from the old members: There is no relationship between the grade of photographic skills and Lula membership ‘stamina’. This delusion is one of the reasons why new members are getting frustrated and stop contributing or step into the pitfall and become rude.
The self-righteousness of some old members is hallucinant and cynicism rules the roost.
Some self-reflection can be beneficial, isn’t it?
Ivo
-
Some self-reflection can be beneficial, isn’t it?
Ivo
Probably all that needs to be said by anyone here.
The rest of your points are potentially salient, but’s it’s not just wishful thinking on my part. A mix of our two perspectives reflect the truth.
My motivation is to encourage where I can.
In the end, the culture of long term members will dictate the next.
Responsibility.
-
Probably all that needs to be said by anyone here.
The rest of your points are potentially salient, but’s it’s not just wishful thinking on my part. A mix of our two perspectives reflect the truth.
My motivation is to encourage where I can.
In the end, the culture of long term members will dictate the next.
Responsibility.
Josh,
I will do my best to take my responsibility where appropriate.
Kind regards
:)
Ivo
-
... I’m afraid your theoretical reflection above is merely an expression of hope and how you would like it to be...
And that is exactly why I said "wise words, Josh." That is how a good leader acts. He doesn't get into the fray with the rest of us jerks, doesn't assign blame, takes sides, castigates... He, the leader, inspires, motivates, appeals to our better side, sets a lofty goal.
It is up to us to follow and deliver.
-
Is kool aid spelled with capital letters?
:-)
-
Is kool aid spelled with capital letters?
:-)
:-)
-
Is kool aid spelled with capital letters?
:-)
Just drink it, Rob. 🥴
-
I think I am justified in assuming that you did this specifically because you have some kind of hard-on for me, and you couldn't bear the thought of anyone actually replying to my.
Fuck you, Roussak, you incompetent dipshit.
I drop in to see how things are going for the first time in months, and what do I see? ::) Cripes. Back to the Large Format Photography Forum. BTW, I've been busy the past month or so getting everything together for my entry into wet plate. Time goes on, but I go backwards. :)
Kent in SD
-
Is kool aid spelled with capital letters?
:-)
Not if one partakes in the elixir. Lower case works just as well.
Peter
-
I drop in to see how things are going for the first time in months, and what do I see? ::) Cripes. Back to the Large Format Photography Forum. BTW, I've been busy the past month or so getting everything together for my entry into wet plate. Time goes on, but I go backwards. :)
Kent in SD
Kent, I've been going backwards and forwards all my life; one gets used to it.
Apropos of nothing much, and quite off topic, but an idea that intruded just now: if there is one lesson worth the learning it's this: try to keep friends, and don't assume too much of them. Most of the folks I know today, especially those around thirty or so, network like hell and keep contacts very much alive. I sometimes wonder how they find the time to make a living. It's a pitfall for the lone wolf artist: he dies alone, too, if that makes a scrap of difference in the end. But during the living, it makes positive differences if managed well.
Wisdom pearl of my day, from wherever it may have arrived!
;-)
-
Is kool aid spelled with capital letters?
:-)
Ok... I’ll admit... I am not smart enough to get the obviously deep meaning of this. I know what kool aid is, metaphorically. So, can someone please dumb it down for me who is drinking it and why (in the context of this thread), and how capital letters would change the meaning?
-
Ok... I’ll admit... I am not smart enough to get the obviously deep meaning of this. I know what kool aid is, metaphorically. So, can someone please dumb it down for me who is drinking it and why (in the context of this thread), and how capital letters would change the meaning?
Only Rob can clarify, I understood it this way:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kool-Aid
Use of the term by those who are themselves Kool-Aid drinkers
In online discussions, accusations of "drinking the Kool-Aid" are often lobbed at skeptics by true believers. In particular this goes for conspiracy theorists and political extremists, who will throw the term about with abandon at anyone who doubts whatever BS they are spouting. For example, survivalists will call anyone who isn't making preparations for the imminent collapse of the world as we know it "Kool-Aid drinkers" (and also sheeple). Believers in conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve, the New World Order, or 9/11 will also call those who laugh at the insanity of such drivel "Kool-Aid drinkers". They don't seem to get that they, themselves, are far more in line with those who followed Jim Jones into eternity than those who are based in reality and have better things to do than bother with extremism.
-
Interesting survey of the field, Ivo. Actually the Kool-Aid references go back to The Peoples Temple, better known as “Jonestown,” where unbelievers, nowadays known as “deniers,” were forced to drink the deadly poisoned stuff. The “believers” drank it voluntarily, and fed it to their kids. Everybody died. Nowadays “believers” drink the religious globalwarmers’ Kool-Aid distilled from bullshit. Instead of dying they’ll simply end up disillusioned if they live long enough.
-
Ivo and Russ, thanks for the contribution, but I already stated that I am aware of the metaphorical meaning (Ivo), and by default, of its origin (Russ). What I am asking is how it relates to this thread and how spelling it with capital letters or not would change anything.
-
... That is how a good leader acts. He doesn't get into the fray with the rest of us jerks, doesn't assign blame, takes sides, castigates... He, the leader, inspires, motivates, appeals to our better side, sets a lofty goal...
Amazing words, coming from a Trump supporter.
-
Amazing words, coming from a Trump supporter.
Yes, Peter, I was aware of the irony when I wrote that.
-
Ivo and Russ, thanks for the contribution, but I already stated that I am aware of the metaphorical meaning (Ivo), and by default, of its origin (Russ). What I am asking is how it relates to this thread and how spelling it with capital letters or not would change anything.
Capitals. If it's a brand name, it may deserve 'em.
Mysticism: when I was doing calendars, my mother-in-law always used to approve of my penchant for keeping a little bit of clothing somewhere on the model - usually, if not definitively as a cast-in-concrete rule or mannerism. She just knew, as most chicks do, that a little mystery is more powerfully interesting than full disclosure, oddly, the current norm in Internetlandia, which probably explains why one sees less and less of the topless sunbather these days (as I avoid beaches in summer as I would the plague at any time, take this as the supposition of an older gent deriving his info. from younger family members).
:-)
-
Rob, I’ve been admiring your writing style for years. I generally can detect a meaning behind most of your hints and references, short of some local Scottish ones. But not this time.
-
Rob, I’ve been admiring your writing style for years. I generally can detect a meaning behind most of your hints and references, short of some local Scottish ones. But not this time.
Maybe Rob had a paneuritmic experience while reading Josh’ vision.
;) ;D
-
Maybe Rob had a paneuritmic experience while reading Josh’ vision.
;) ;D
I certainly did ! 😉
-
That BYTE reference brings good old memories, Jeremy.
I wrote a few articles for both BYTE
Excellent! Glad to hear it. BYTE was required reading during the eighties. As was "Electronics". I subscribed to both.
-
Yes, Peter, I was aware of the irony when I wrote that.
:) :) :)
-
I certainly did ! 😉
You mean, you blew your own mind?
Rob
-
You mean, you blew your own mind?
Rob
Yes, that was my “joke”. 🌟
-
I certainly did ! 😉
;D ;D ;)
-
If you want to see Andrew (amolitor) at his best, check PhotoPXL: https://photopxl.com/history-of-photography-archer-and-cameron/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=history-of-photography-archer-and-cameron
I frequently disagree with Andrew, but he knows his stuff.
-
If you want to see Andrew (amolitor) at his best, check PhotoPXL: https://photopxl.com/history-of-photography-archer-and-cameron/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=history-of-photography-archer-and-cameron
I frequently disagree with Andrew, but he knows his stuff.
The thing is, some can handle fools gladly but others can't; there are posters here who never answer direct questions and just shift the subject by asking another. I have noticed this trait in Jewish sit coms. That's probably where politicians picked up the technique. Sadly, it is as distancing as it is unsatisfactory a way of conducting debate.
Andrew appears very bright, and so it must annoy him a lot.
This is not, by the way, a defence for his outburst in this thread.
Rob
-
Andrew's a bright guy. His problem is that he lives on the left coast, and has absorbed the politics and philosophy that go with that area. Can't really be helped.
-
Andrew's a bright guy. His problem is that he lives on the left coast, and has absorbed the politics and philosophy that go with that area. Can't really be helped.
Is that how you explain your politics and philosophy, you live in Florida?
-
Is that how you explain your politics and philosophy, you live in Florida?
I've lived just about everywhere, Fab, including Asia for a few war years. That tends to expand your view of the world and puncture a lot of political balloons along the way.
-
Andrew's a bright guy. His problem is that he lives on the left coast, and has absorbed the politics and philosophy that go with that area. Can't really be helped.
LEFT COAST!!
!! He said 'LEFT'!!
:o
-
SO ? 8)
-
Right, Ivo. The left coast. The only problem with that is that if you're going to call the west coast "the left coast," then you almost have to believe that the east coast is "the right coast." Unfortunately, it's just as left as the left coast.
-
Sigh. The triple point of politics, geography and terminology.
-
Right, Ivo. The left coast. The only problem with that is that if you're going to call the west coast "the left coast," then you almost have to believe that the east coast is "the right coast." Unfortunately, it's just as left as the left coast.
Yeah, all right and fine too, but the L. word should be used with care, Russ. You should know that. 😳
-
LEFT COAST!!
!! He said 'LEFT'!!
:o
It's called a "Lapsus Linguae" ;)
-
Right, Ivo. The left coast. The only problem with that is that if you're going to call the west coast "the left coast," then you almost have to believe that the east coast is "the right coast." Unfortunately, it's just as left as the left coast.
For Ontarians, looking in southerly direction, the East Coast is left and everything west from Pensylvania is right. For British Columbians, the US west coast is no more right than the home turf.
-
For Ontarians, looking in southerly direction, the East Coast is left and everything west from Pensylvania is right. For British Columbians, the US west coast is no more right than the home turf.
Reminds me of the famous image of a typical New Yorker's myopic view of the world that was on the New Yorker Magazine cover in 1976.
(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/medium/2/new-yorker-march-29-1976-saul-steinberg.jpg)
-
Yeah, all right and fine too, but the L. word should be used with care, Russ. You should know that. 😳
What is this already one page long excitement about “left” !? Some sort of impenetrable Belgium humor?
-
What is this already one page long excitement about “left” !? Some sort of impenetrable Belgium humor?
It’s an Antwerp style humorous intermezzo playing with the pejorative of the word “Left, Lefties, etc”, given to that particular word, here at Lula.
Hear the Monty Python tunes on the background. 8)
-
It’s an Antwerp style humorous intermezzo playing with the pejorative of the word “Left, Lefties, etc”, given to that particular word, here at Lula.
That was an easy one, Slobodan. Come on... ;)
-
Reminds me of the famous image of a typical New Yorker's myopic view of the world that was on the New Yorker Magazine cover in 1976.
(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/medium/2/new-yorker-march-29-1976-saul-steinberg.jpg)
AH, the great Saul Steinberg. I had the pleasure of meeting him in the early 90's. Very interesting man.
Peter
-
The map has it pretty well sussed. Just like London vis-à-vis the rest of Britain.
There is no viable substitute for a seat at the top table; but entry costs so damned much unless you get born there, which is somebody else's good forward planning on your behalf.
Fact of life.
-
What is this already one page long excitement about “left” !? Some sort of impenetrable Belgium humor?
It's easy, Slobodan.
Some folks just don't want to be left out of the discussion. It's their right, isn't it? 8)
-
It's easy, Slobodan.
Some folks just don't want to be left out of the discussion. It's their right, isn't it? 8)
Excellent conclusion, Eric